Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Sinyc]

One of the very few quotes in fact, it says, "...does not establish..." but it's important to know what that actually means re burdens of proof (they didn't find proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but not that they didn't find strong evidence supporting it, and clearly leaves room for both "clear and convincing evidence" and "preponderance of the evidence"), and is different from what barr wrote in his letter, "did not find." An important thing to note: proof beyond a reasonable doubt is mainly only used in the US justice system when we're sending people to jail. That should not be the burden of proof someone requires here. I'm not sure why someone would think that if it's only "more likely than not" (preponderance of the evidence) that the president was in a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power against the US' interests, that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Well I read it as Mueller has underlying evidence separate from the report. In which he lays out both sides of the argument for both charges. I would think that if Mueller doesn't see enough to bring charges on a sitting President, than who would and ever expect to have a fair trial? You can't bend the law because you don't like Trump.

[Dontrike]

Keep this up and see who wins in 2020.

Oh it will be Trump that wins, but that's 'cause people are retarded.

[Ripster42]

"The report"? We don't have the report. We have Barr's interpretation of it.

I'll do what I said I'd do long ago, wait for the report, and that's what everyone should do, rather than listening to the "maybe, maybe not" from one person.

Barr's letter does quote the report in very limited segments. But again, the wording of the quote is very specific, and doesn't actually mean what people (including barr) are construing it to mean.

[Aehl]

Over half-a-dozen guilty pleas and convictions with likely more to come says that you are mistaken.

Moana

Remember Scooter Libby? That was whats called a "process crime"

BTW If we are going to discuss indictments, I still see that the Clinton aides who lied to the FBI havent been charged.

And then theres the Lisa Page affair which is still evolving.

[Dontrike]

You can't bend the law because you don't like Trump.

Much like you can't bend the law for liking him either, but Barr does have a history of saying the president is above the law and can't obstruct justice.

Context!

[Ooid]

Oh it will be Trump that wins, but that's 'cause people are retarded.

It's terrible that people can vote for who they want and not for the candidate you think is best. A damn shame.

[Sinyc]

No he didn't. He didn't even consult Mueller's opinion.

Try again.

"The report"? We don't have the report. We have Barr's interpretation of it.

I'll do what I said I'd do long ago, wait for the report, and that's what everyone should do, rather than listening to the "maybe, maybe not" from one person.

Barr has the Mueller report and he directly quoted it in his summary? What are you going on about?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...er-report.html

Page 2, end of second paragraph under the heading Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

Are you both saying that is not a direct quote? Please don't confuse Muellers REPORT for Barrs SUMMARY. In this context report = Mueller report.

[Ripster42]

Well I read it as Mueller has underlying evidence separate from the report. In which he lays out both sides of the argument for both charges. I would think that if Mueller doesn't see enough to bring charges on a sitting President, than who would and ever expect to have a fair trial? You can't bend the law because you don't like Trump.

The report on collusion essentially just says we don't have enough evidence to put him in jail. There's a fairly obvious action, that doesn't involve putting trump in jail, that shouldn't need the burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[Aehl]

Oh it will be Trump that wins, but that's 'cause people are retarded.

Ever stop to think that the longer this farce continues, the more will see just how deep the swamp goes, and how corrupt Washington is?

[MoanaLisa]

Moana

Remember Scooter Libby? That was whats called a "process crime"

BTW If we are going to discuss indictments, I still see that the Clinton aides who lied to the FBI havent been charged.

And then theres the Lisa Page affair which is still evolving.

You know, I'm fine with people who break the law being indicted and tried. All of them. Not just Dems. Not just Republicans. I'll stand pat on the thought that an investigation that resulted in guilty pleas or jail time for Flynn, Cohen, Manafort and others was useful.

[Dontrike]

It's terrible that people can vote for who they want and not for the candidate you think is best. A damn shame.

I don't care who I thought was best, I didn't vote as I found no candidate worth voting for (I didn't like Hillary and fuck knows I don't like Trump, and the 3rd party candidates had their own issues), but I knew for a fact Trump wasn't near the best of any of them, from the campaign trail to the actual election.

If you think Trump is the best then you have some things to sort through. The man was and is not clearly not ready for this job and his actions and track record both during and before his presidency prove it.

Anyone that though Trump would fight the elite, while being one of the elite, run the country like a business, which meant running it like one of his failing businesses, and would make us strong, while being one of the most whiny bitches around, was clearly only angry about other candidates and fucked up completely in their own logic.

[DarkTZeratul]

I would think that if Mueller doesn't see enough to bring charges on a sitting President, than who would and ever expect to have a fair trial?

Mueller doesn't have the jurisdiction to bring charges himself. It was always going to be a matter of laying out the evidence and allowing others to make the decision.

[Sinyc]

Mueller doesn't have the jurisdiction to bring charges himself. It was always going to be a matter of laying out the evidence and allowing others to make the decision.

Replace "bring" with "suggest" or w/e legalese you will.

[Aehl]

I see some of this and laugh..as I remember a case some years ago when a man was charged with murder, was acquitted "on reasonable doubt"..the prosecution kept saying he was guilty and kept going on the investigation....

..until the day the supposed murder victim walked into a police station.

Oops..............

[Ripster42]

Barr has the Mueller report and he directly quoted it in his summary? What are you going on about?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...er-report.html

Page 2, end of second paragraph under the heading Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

Are you both saying that is not a direct quote? Please don't confuse Muellers REPORT for Barrs SUMMARY. In this context report = Mueller report.

He didn't consult mueller on his report. Again, I doubt mueller would agree with, the statement, "The SCO did not find that trump, any of his campaign members, nor campaign associates colluded with a foreign power to influence the election." Again, that's informed by the fact that manafort gave kilimnik polling data, which we know because of manafort's lawyer's crappy redactions.

[Dontrike]

I see some of this and laugh..as I remember a case some years ago when a man was charged with murder, was acquitted "on reasonable doubt"..the prosecution kept saying he was guilty and kept going on the investigation....

..until the day the supposed murder victim walked into a police station.

Oops..............

I remember a post, some minutes ago, where a guy brought some off topic nonsense that had nothing to do with anything. You might know him.

[Aehl]

Mueller doesn't have the jurisdiction to bring charges himself. It was always going to be a matter of laying out the evidence and allowing others to make the decision.

..but there is no evidence.

No proof.

No case.

[MoanaLisa]

Says "doesn't exonerate."
Everyone thinks "did nothing wrong, ever."

I'm sure that "TRUMP 2020: NOT EXONERATED!!" will make a good bumper sticker.

This is really all pointless BS until we can see the entire report. Barr never was going to charge the President with obstruction. He was clear about that in his confirmation hearings. There really shouldn't be any surprises here.

But as long as we're all on the same page that Trump was not guilty of something then there shouldn't be any problem at all releasing the report and supporting documentation. That needs to be the next step and anyone who says otherwise may not have the courage of their convictions (or talking points).

And if Republicans really want to make a stink about Obama or Clinton and start investigating that, I'm sure the American public, which would like to see some progress on things that matter to them--just ponder the questions they ask candidates when they get the chance--will see another two year delay on anything while Republicans stomp back and forth over that old ground and think "That's fine. I can wait."

Conservatives/Republicans/Right-Wingers ought to take their victory and do something positive with it while everyone is watching them. My guess is that they'll do the revenge thing, overstep and stand a decent chance of a repeat of the mid-terms.

[Dontrike]

..but there is no evidence.

No proof.

No case.

"Doesn't exonerate" is the most skipped over piece of writing. Ever.

[Smitzelplix]

Correct

No proof = no case.



Ah yes, if we cant get him for this we will get him for that.....right.

Keep this up and see who wins in 2020.

What does the bolded have to do with the Democrats in the House or the Senate? SDNY is handled by the state of New York, so I don't see how them pursuing charges is going to do anything to the Democrats at the federal level.